Opinion
22-cv-03028-SI
04-12-2023
JASON LEVETTE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. M. KEEGAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS FOR APPEAL RE: DKT. NO. 40
SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court dismissed the first amended complaint, which failed to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and sought federal court review of a state court judgment in violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2008).
An appeal is taken in “good faith” where it seeks review of any issue that is “non-frivolous.” Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). The “good faith” standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). “[A]n issue is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.” O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). The Court now certifies that the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith and revokes in forma pauperis status for plaintiff on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.